Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Health Sciences

---

Overview

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Health Sciences employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of all published articles. Double-blind means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All submissions undergo thorough evaluation by independent experts in the relevant field before a publication decision is made.

---

A. PEER REVIEW POLICY SUMMARY

---

B. STAGES OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Stage 1: Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscript electronically through the conference submission system (e.g., EasyChair, OpenConf, or designated email) by the announced deadline.

Required documents:

• Manuscript (in .docx or .pdf format, following the template)

• Cover letter (optional but encouraged)

• Conflict of interest disclosure form

• Ethics approval statement (for human/animal studies)

---

Stage 2: Administrative Check (Initial Screening)

Upon receipt, the editorial office performs an initial screening within 3–5 business days.

Outcomes of initial screening:

---

Stage 3: Assignment to Section Editor

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor based on the topic area (e.g., Biomedical Engineering, Health Informatics, Public Health Technology, etc.).

The Section Editor:

• Verifies the manuscript's suitability

• Checks for potential conflicts of interest

• Identifies potential reviewers

---

Stage 4: Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The Section Editor selects at least 2 qualified reviewers based on:

• Expertise in the manuscript's specific topic

• Publication record in related fields

• Previous review performance (quality, timeliness)

• Absence of conflict of interest with authors

Reviewers are excluded if they have:

• Collaborated with any author within the last 3 years

• A personal or professional relationship with any author

• A direct financial interest in the outcome

• A competing research interest

Reviewer invitation process:

1. Invitation email sent to potential reviewer (includes title, abstract, and review deadline)

2. Reviewer has 5 days to accept or decline

3. If declined, the editor invites an alternative reviewer

4. A minimum of 2 accepted reviewers is required to proceed

---

Stage 5: Peer Review Conduct

Reviewers are given 3–4 weeks to complete their review. They evaluate the manuscript using a standardized review form covering the following criteria:

Review Criteria

Review Recommendations

Reviewers select one of the following recommendations:

Reviewers also provide:

• Confidential comments to the editor (not shared with authors)

• Comments to the authors (detailed, constructive feedback)

---

Stage 6: Editorial Decision

Once at least two reviews are received, the Section Editor evaluates the reviews and makes a preliminary decision. For conflicting recommendations, the editor may:

• Invite a third reviewer to break the tie

• Make a judgment based on their own expertise

Possible editorial decisions:

The corresponding author receives a decision letter containing:

• Editorial decision

• Summary of reviewer comments

• Specific revision requirements (if applicable)

• Deadline for resubmission

Timeline from submission to first decision: 4–6 weeks

---

Stage 7: Revision and Resubmission

For Minor Revisions (14 days)

• Author addresses all reviewer comments

• Provides a response to reviewers (point-by-point)

• Submits revised manuscript (with changes highlighted or tracked changes)

• Editor verifies revisions; no re-review required

• Final decision within 1 week

For Major Revisions (30 days)

• Author carefully addresses all reviewer comments

• Provides a detailed response to reviewers (point-by-point)

• Submits revised manuscript (with changes clearly marked)

• Revised manuscript is sent back to original reviewers (or new reviewers if unavailable)

• Second round of review takes 2–3 weeks

• Possible outcomes: Accept, Minor revisions, or Reject

Extension policy: Authors may request a one-time extension of up to 14 days (minor) or 30 days (major) by emailing the editor with a valid reason.

---

Stage 8: Final Decision

After the revision round, the Section Editor makes a final decision:

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production phase (copyediting, typesetting, proofreading).

---

Stage 9: Final Submission and Publication

Authors of accepted manuscripts must submit:

1. Final camera-ready manuscript (in .docx and PDF/A)

2. Signed copyright transfer form (or license agreement)

3. Final response to reviewers (confirming all changes)

4. Author agreement form

The manuscript then undergoes:

• Copyediting (grammar, style, consistency)

• Typesetting (layout according to template)

• Proof review by author (48 hours to approve)

• Online publication (with DOI assignment)

---

C. REVIEWER SELECTION CRITERIA

Preferred Reviewer Qualifications

• Holds a PhD or equivalent terminal degree in a relevant field

• Has published at least 3 peer-reviewed articles in the last 5 years

• Has no unresolved conflicts of interest with the authors

• Has a good track record of completing reviews on time

Reviewers from Industry

Professionals with significant industry experience (e.g., senior engineers, clinical directors, regulatory experts) may be selected even without a PhD, provided they have demonstrated expertise.

Prohibited Reviewer Relationships

Reviewers cannot be:

• A co-author with any author in the last 3 years

• A current or recent (within 3 years) collaborator, advisor, or advisee

• A family member or close personal friend of any author

• A competitor with direct financial interest in the outcome

• Employed at the same institution as any author (unless the institution is very large and departments are unrelated)

---

D. AUTHOR-SUGGESTED REVIEWERS

Authors may suggest up to 3 potential reviewers during submission. These suggestions are considered but not guaranteed to be used.

Author-suggested reviewers must NOT:

• Include co-authors or collaborators

• Include current or former advisors/students

• Be employed at the same institution as any author

Authors may also request excluded reviewers (up to 2) with a valid reason (e.g., direct competition, personal conflict). The editor will honor reasonable requests.

---

E. REVIEWER RECOGNITION

The proceedings values the contributions of its reviewers. Reviewers receive:

• A formal acknowledgment letter (upon request)

• Recognition in the annual reviewer acknowledgment list (published in the proceedings)

• Consideration for "Best Reviewer Award" (if applicable)

• Certificate of appreciation (for exceptional service)

---

F. CONFIDENTIALITY

All parties involved in the peer review process must maintain strict confidentiality:

---

G. REVIEWER GUIDELINES (BEST PRACTICES)

Reviewers are expected to:

1. Decline if unqualified or unable to meet the deadline

2. Provide constructive feedback – Focus on improving the manuscript, not criticizing the authors

3. Be specific – Identify exact problems and suggest solutions

4. Respect confidentiality – Do not use unpublished data for personal research

5. Avoid personal attacks – Critique the work, not the authors

6. Check for missing citations – Notify editor if important prior work is omitted

7. Disclose conflicts – Immediately inform editor of any potential bias

---

H. PLAGIARISM AND MISCONDUCT CHECK

Before peer review: All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software (Turnitin or iThenticate).

During or after peer review: If plagiarism or misconduct is discovered, the process outlined in the Publication Ethics statement will be followed.

---

I. TIMELINE SUMMARY

Total estimated time from submission to publication: 8–14 weeks

---

J. APPEALS PROCESS

If an author believes a rejection decision was unjustified, they may submit an appeal.

Appeal requirements:

1. Submit appeal letter to editor-in-chief within 14 days of decision

2. Provide a point-by-point response to each reason for rejection

3. Include any new evidence or arguments (e.g., clarification of misinterpreted methods)

Appeal process:

1. Editor-in-chief reviews the appeal

2. A new editor (not involved in original decision) evaluates the manuscript and appeal

3. At least one new reviewer may be consulted

4. Final decision is communicated within 4 weeks

Possible outcomes:

• Appeal granted – Manuscript re-enters review process

• Appeal denied – Original rejection stands (decision is final)

Note: Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewers' scientific opinions are rarely successful.

---

K. SPECIAL CASES

Rapid Review (for invited or plenary papers)

Selected invited papers (e.g., keynote speakers, plenary sessions) may undergo an expedited review process. These manuscripts still receive peer review but with shorter timelines (2–3 weeks total).

Withdrawal During Review

Authors may withdraw their manuscript at any time during the review process by submitting a written request to the editor. A withdrawal confirmation will be sent. Withdrawn manuscripts cannot be resubmitted to the same volume.

---

L. CONTACT INFORMATION

For questions about the peer review process, please contact:

Peer Review Coordinator
Email: conference@itekesmukalbar.ac.id
Website: www.ejournal.itekesmukalbar.ac.id

For submission-related inquiries:
Email: submissions@tchs-conference.org

---

M. POLICY REVIEW

This Peer Review Process policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Board. The current version is effective as of:

Date of last revision: April 8, 2026